[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

User talk:Srleffler: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
(24 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 21: Line 21:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srleffler&oldid=820200035 Jan. 2016–Dec. 2017]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srleffler&oldid=820200035 Jan. 2016–Dec. 2017]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srleffler&oldid=1006623907 Jan. 2018–Dec. 2020]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srleffler&oldid=1006623907 Jan. 2018–Dec. 2020]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srleffler&oldid=1188174801 Jan. 2020–Dec. 2023]
|}
|}
Hi, feel free to leave me a message. Kindly leave messages on new topics at the ''bottom'' of this page. [[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]]
Hi, feel free to leave me a message. Kindly leave messages on new topics at the ''bottom'' of this page. [[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]]


== Your edit ==
== You are correct ==


I really should have linked the discussion I was referring to avoid confusion. I’ll have to remember this for the future when talking about behavior; I should also try to write things a little more earlier than midnight ;) (When I woke up after that night I had to edit a lot if clumsy grammar mistakes I made). [[User:Wolfquack|Wolfquack]] ([[User talk:Wolfquack|talk]]) 19:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Noticed the edit you made on [[Optic fiber]] and would like to thank you for doing such. Though it is a minor one, it's highly appreciated. [[User:Yogibur|Yogibur]] ([[User talk:Yogibur|talk]]) 15:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


:P.S. My post was more directed towards the editors who participated in that “consensus”, which is why I didn’t think I needed to add the link. Definitely a mega oof. [[User:Wolfquack|Wolfquack]] ([[User talk:Wolfquack|talk]]) 19:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
== 40k ==
Congrats on 40k edits! Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! ―[[User:Sportzpikachu|''sportzpikachu'']] <sub style="display:inline-block">[[User_talk:Sportzpikachu|<span style="color:green;display:block">my talk</span>]][[Special:Contribs/Sportzpikachu|<span style="color:green;display:block">contribs</span>]]</sub> 02:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

== Spelling edit to Radiometry article ==

Thank you for reverting my edit, here:
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiometry&type=revision&diff=1006523348&oldid=1006110230

I was aware of the wikipedia policy about the different varieties of English. I was not aware that 'gasses' is an acceptable spelling for the plural of 'gas' anywhere. In British English, the plural form is 'gases'. I just looked on the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, a major United States English dictionary. This states

" plural 'gases' also 'gasses' "

Thus, if you want to use the unusual form 'gasses', that is fine with me.

I understand you wrote quite a lot of this article: thanks for informing me on this subject!

Best wishes, [[User:Boleslaw|Boleslaw]] ([[User talk:Boleslaw|talk]]) 17:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

:I had looked at [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/gasses Collins] and the [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gasses Cambridge] dictionaries, both of which showed "gasses" as an acceptable plural. --[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 21:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling lesson. I had thought 'gasses' was not an accepted spelling anywhere; it seems that it is accepted, though less common, in both United States and British English. All the best. [[User:Boleslaw|Boleslaw]] ([[User talk:Boleslaw|talk]]) 14:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

== Edit on polarization ==

Hi,

I noticed you reverted my edit on the [[Polarization_(waves)]] page.

The gif was recently updated to include a projection in the xy plane.
(You may need to clear your browser cache for it to update)

Kind Regards,

[[User:Davidjessop|Davidjessop]] ([[User talk:Davidjessop|talk]]) 09:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
:Sorry about that. I missed that the image had changed.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 17:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
::No worries --[[User:Davidjessop|Davidjessop]] ([[User talk:Davidjessop|talk]]) 17:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

== Favorite References ==

I enjoyed looking through your favorite references as Wangsness is a fairly uncommon choice for E&M, but was by far my favorite undergrad text. Additionally, John Greivenkamp was my professor last year and is a thoroughly wonderful fellow! I'm actually hoping to work with him this next year to develop a page on the history of the College of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona.

Cheers, <br>
[[User:DavidJonBloom|DavidJonBloom]] ([[User talk:DavidJonBloom|talk]]) 04:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

== Smaller than a human hair ==

Yeah, but no laser can emit one single wave length (or one color). Impossible! Terrible use of the English language and a dreadful description of what really happens.

:Depends on how you define "wavelength" or "color'. Most people don't mentally distinguish between colors beyond what you'd find in a box of Crayons. When it comes to the spectrum, most people don't distinguish much beyond 7 or 13 colors, so in this sense, a laser most certainly can emit only one color.

:Then there's wavelength. How do we define that. Most lasers emit a bandwidth, or line width, that is centered on a certain wavelength. Some, such as untuned dye lasers, can emit linewiths of 100 nanometers or more, while others, such as highly-tuned dye lasers, can emit linewidths of only a small fraction of an angstrom, or a few orders of magnitude smaller than a nanometer. That is as close to one color as you can achieve. So, it all really depends on where you draw the line, but for a general audience, "one color" is usually sufficient. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 04:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

:If the article said a laser could emit one single wavelength, it would be wrong. It does not say that, though. It says that a laser can emit "light with a very narrow spectrum". Since the lede needs to be comprehensible for an audience that may not understand what that means, we rephrase as "i.e., they can emit a single color of light", which is true enough at that level of detail. If you're talking about a narrow-linewidth laser's output in terms of "color" rather than wavelength or frequency you don't need to qualify it by saying that it is ''approximately'' a single color. "Color" is already an approximate quantity. --[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 12:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

== A request to contribute to the discussion ==

Good morning,

please express your opinion in the thread "relativistic mass" in the discussion with DVdm:

"The legitimacy of removing entries by DVdm in a topic of relativistic mass"

thank you in advance,
Best Regards, RodriguesVector. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:RodriguesVector|RodriguesVector]] ([[User talk:RodriguesVector#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RodriguesVector|contribs]]) 20:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)</span>

== Gaslight - making good faith edits ==

I made 6 good faith edits to the disambiguation to make it more consistent with other disambiguation pages. You reverted and therefore rejected all 6. Shouldn't you consider what the editor (me) was trying to do to improve the page and only edit the specific part you think was not an improvement? Here is the page.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaslight_(disambiguation)&action=history] What was "not helpful"?

::All the exact terms "Gaslight" were listed before the variations of the term (e.g., gaslighting, gaslighter, gaslighted, etc.)
::The descriptive phrase for one entry was charged to be consistent with the article's opening/summary paragraph
::The formatting of the stage and film entries were changed so they were exactly the same.
::The subhead "Fiction" was changed to "Stage and Film".

I reverted your edit and ask that you change the parts that specifically seem wrong to you and then we can discuss if there is more to be said. Fair?

Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/97.99.90.245|97.99.90.245]] ([[User talk:97.99.90.245|talk]]) 15:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I see someone else already did a partial revert. I had a couple issues with your changes:
* Having two entries with the form "'''[[Gaslight]]''' is..." at the top of the article is not the correct format for a dab page. When there is no primary topic, dab pages begin with a line of the form "'''Gaslight''' may refer to:", followed by the dab entries. When there is a primary topic (as in this case), the page begins with ''one'' entry of the form "'''[[Gaslight]]''' is...", followed by "'''Gaslight''' may also refer to:" See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages]]
* Putting entries with the exact term "gaslight" first does not make sense. The reason is a bit subtle: ''every'' entry on the page must be ambiguous with "gaslight". Mere variations of the term ''don't belong on the page at all''. Entries where the link is a variation on the term appear only when the term "gaslight" itself can also be used, and where that usage is covered on the linked page. So, for example, "[[Gaslighting]]" appears because "gaslight" is the present tense form of that verb. Since ''every'' entry is ambiguous with "gaslight" ordering based on the exact form of the link does not work. For the same reason, alphabetizing dab page entries is not useful. Entries are typically sorted by type or by importance.
* I don't have a problem with "Stage and film" as a section head, but note [[WP:MOSHEAD]]: section headings should be in sentence case
* The Manual of Style (link above) forbids piping links on dab pages except in certain circumstances. <nowiki>[[Gas Light|''Gas Light'' (1938 play)]]</nowiki> is not allowed.
* None of the other changes seemed necessary, and given the number of problems with the edit it was easier to revert than to fix, so I did.
--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 23:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding to the above list now that I take a closer look at it:
* Your edits removed the indentation that reflected that the films were based on the play, and removed the phrase "based on the play" from several descriptions.
* Your edits moved [[Gaslighting]] into See also. It belongs in the main list because ''gaslighting'' is the gerund form of the verb "to gaslight".
* "Places" is less specific than "Clubs"
The only change that was actually an improvement was the change from "Fiction" to "Stage and film".--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 00:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message ==

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2021|2021 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1056562944 -->

== [[F. J. Duarte]] ==

If you would be willing to lend a hand at that bio, your expertise improve it. Duarte is justifiably notable, but his bio has been inflated with promo sourced only to primary research papers. IPs based in Johnson City, TN seem to be responsible. [[User:HouseOfChange|HouseOfChange]] ([[User talk:HouseOfChange|talk]]) 20:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


== Merry Christmas! ==
== Merry Christmas! ==


Hi Srleffler. I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for all you do here, especially on optics and laser-related articles. And thanks for all the help you've given me in the past. All you do here is very much appreciated. I hope you have a wonderful Christmas, and may the coming year bring you much happiness and joy. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 23:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Srleffler! I've seen so many people come and go over the years. I'm glad to see you're still around. Your help on optics and laser articles is always appreciated. I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas! I hope the coming New Year brings you happiness and joy! [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 22:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
:Merry Christmas to you too Zaereth!--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 03:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
:Merry Christmas to you too, Zaereth!--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 05:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

== Coherence length formula for a Gaussian source ==
Hi Srleffler, I see that on the Coherence Length wiki page, you revert changes to the coherence length equation for a Gaussian source that remove the square root. I looked at the paper you referenced, and I believe the paper is incorrect. In the paper, they say that the coherence length is the FWHM of the modulus of the complex temporal coherence function (Eq. 2 in the paper), but actually the coherence length should be the HWHM (half width half maximum), which is the FWHM/2. The coherence length being the HWHM agrees with the explanation that the coherence length can be thought of as the path offset at which the fringe visibility drops to 50% (when measured with a Michelson interferometer), and is also why the path offset is +-L. This is why Equation 8 in the paper is off by a factor of 2 from the "correct" answer, i.e., they report the FWHM number incorrectly as the coherence length, when the coherence length should actually be the HWHM. As for why Equation 12 looks "correct" in the paper but actually refers to a Lorentzian source, again they are off by a factor of 2 and Equation 12 should also be divided by 2. Thus, the conclusion should be that given some bandwidth, the coherence length of a Lorentzian source would be half the coherence length of a Gaussian source.

We can derive the correct answer (which again is Equation 8 in the paper divided by 2) using the fact that the fringe visibility is related to the Fourier transform of the source spectrum (in frequency). Starting with a Gaussian source that has a FWHM of Δν and some center frequency ν0, we first find the standard deviation of the Gaussian, σ, using the fact that FWHM = 2*sqrt{2 ln(2)}*σ, then we can write the full description of the Gaussian in frequency space. If we compute the Fourier transform of the Gaussian in frequency space using a Fourier kernel of e^{-i2*pi*ντ), where τ = l/c (τ is time, which corresponds to length divided by the speed of light), we get another Gaussian in length space with some standard deviation σ', which we can find in terms of σ. The coherence length is the HWHM of the Gaussian in length space, and when you plug in for σ' in terms of σ, and σ in terms of Δν, then use the fact that c/Δv = λ^2/Δλ, you find that there is no square root. We can sort of see this now, since the FWHM and the HWHM equations both have sqrt{2 ln(2)}, and when you do the math the two square roots are multiplied together and thus gets rid of the square root. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2603:7080:6E01:72AE:9922:7A36:ACAC:8CC0|2603:7080:6E01:72AE:9922:7A36:ACAC:8CC0]] ([[User talk:2603:7080:6E01:72AE:9922:7A36:ACAC:8CC0#top|talk]]) 19:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Thanks for explaining. Looking back over the history, I see that the equation has been flipped back and forth between the two forms at least five times over the last nine years. It appears that there are two different forms of this equation in the published literature, and users are editing the page to match whichever book or paper they happen to have.
:We can't derive the correct answer. One of Wikipedia's foundational policies is [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]]. We only report what has been published elsewhere, ideally in reliable ''secondary'' sources.
:The current article cites a paper by Akcay, which you assert is incorrrect. Interestingly, the article originally had the form you prefer and cited a book by Dreyler. An editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coherence_length&type=revision&diff=679782283&oldid=648751892 back in 2015] asserted that that book was incorrect, and changed both the formula and the reference. Between a book and a paper I would normally take the book as the more reliable source but given the number of times this has been flipped I think the article probably needs to address both to prevent continual churn on this formula. I'll take a look and see what I can do.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 03:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
== Nomination for deletion of [[:Template:F/2]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|30px|link=]][[:Template:F/2]] has been [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion|nominated for deletion]]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 May 16#Template:F/2|the entry on the Templates for discussion page]].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
== Nomination for deletion of [[:Template:F/m]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|30px|link=]][[:Template:F/m]] has been [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion|nominated for deletion]]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 May 16#Template:F/m|the entry on the Templates for discussion page]].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

== Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? ==

{| style="background:#E2E7FF; border:1px solid #000080; padding: 10px; width: auto"
|-
|rowspan=2 style="position:relative; right:6px"| [[File:Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg|left|110px]]
|-
|
{| style="float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF;
|- style="font-size: 86%;"
| {{Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart|width=300|height=150|}}Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ({{purge}})
|}
Hi Srleffler,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team '''needs help''' from experienced users.

Would you please consider becoming a [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers|New Page Reviewer]]? Kindly read <u>[[Wikipedia:New pages patrol|the tutorial]]</u> before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at [[WP:PERM/NPR]]. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers|discussion board]].

Cheers, and hope to see you around, ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
|}
<!-- Message sent by User:Buidhe@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Buidhe/test&oldid=1092495886 -->

== Disagreement on your revision ==

I honstly hate having to yap on your page about this. I saw your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lens_(disambiguation)&oldid=1109667545 revision] on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lens_(disambiguation)&oldid=1109392898 my edit] claiming it is "Not ambiguous with 'lens'". To be clear, there has been disambiguation pages that has linked to past idents such as [[Circle (disambiguation)|Circle]] ([[BBC One 'Circle' idents|which is linked]]), [[Balloon (disambiguation)|Balloon]] ([[BBC One 'Balloon' idents|same thing as well]]), and even [[Cube (disambiguation)|Cube]] ([[BBC Two 'Cube' ident|its the same]]). As I'm trying to do, I'm trying to make these disambiguation pages easier for people to search for them instead of having to fiddle around the search bar anyhow. Look, I'm in strong disagreement with your decision on claiming it isn't ambiguous when in reality, I've seen other pages that have it directed to those IDs and its considered relevant. [[User:20chances|20chances]] ([[User talk:20chances|talk]]) 02:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
:I'm glad to talk it over with you. From [[WP:PARTIAL]], "A disambiguation page is not a search index. A link to an article title that merely contains part of the disambiguation page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion between them ... should not be included." Unless a reasonable person might use the word "Lens" by itself to refer to a BBC One 'Lens' ident, it doesn't belong on the disambiguation page.
:About the other examples: Wikipedia works on policies and guidelines, not precedents. I'll take a look at those entries and remove them as well if they have the same problem.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 03:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
::Sorry for the late reply (I was at work). On my view, I honestly have no problem keeping them as is. Even if it makes it easier for them trying to look for them. I still (even at a higher end) disagree with your point, especially if it's just the name of a set of IDs used for a network. Even if it's just the name, it should have a right to be placed in the disambiguation page anyhow. Still, I was trying to make sure they become more accessible. [[User:20chances|20chances]] ([[User talk:20chances|talk]]) 00:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

== Balloon shadow 2 ==

[[File:Balloon shadow 2.jpg|thumb|Shadow of hot-air balloon]]
Re [[Retroreflector]] You may prefer this slightly earlier photo, which shows the aura better, but at higher resolution adds nothing, where in the first shot individual blades of grass are discernable. We probably don't need both but now you have a choice :) [[User:Doug butler|Doug butler]] ([[User talk:Doug butler|talk]]) 00:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
:I prefer the one that is in the article. This one is a nicer picture, but it has too much going on. The other picture focuses attention more on the baloon's shadow.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 03:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
::That's cool. At first I thought you regarded the aura as a bit subtle, which is not the case with this one. And a bonus is that the aura is centered on the upper LHS of the basket.
::This has been a nice experiment, though hardly ground-breaking. I had noticed the aura effect on the plane's shadow while travelling on light aircraft, and never got a satisfactory explanation, just a bit of hand weaving and dark mentions of sharp edges. [[User:Doug butler|Doug butler]] ([[User talk:Doug butler|talk]]) 05:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

== Fête ==

I don't know if you read French, but you might want to glance at this article to see why I don't think an article entitled "Fête," even in English Wikipedia, should be narrowly focused on the English-speaking world.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%AAte

[[User:Jcejhay|Jcejhay]] ([[User talk:Jcejhay|talk]]) [[User:Jcejhay|Jcejhay]] ([[User talk:Jcejhay|talk]]) 18:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
:[[WP:NOTDICT|Wikipedia is not a dictionary]]: the topic of an article is not the article title, but rather the thing the article title describes. It's not clear to me that the French word ''fête'' describes the same thing as the English word ''fête'', particularly to the extent that we are distinguishing the latter from [[party]], [[celebration]], and [[festival]]. The article [[Fête]] can exist only if it describes something that is distinct from those other types of event. What makes that thing distinct is the particular cultural tradition arising with the British village fêtes, and passed on to other parts of the English-speaking world. From a quick skim of the lead of the French article, it does not appear to me that the French ''fête'' is connected to this tradition. Note that the interlanguage link from the French article to English Wikipedia does not point to [[Fête]], but rather to [[Party]].--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 18:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
::Well, fair enough, but it still seems to me that there's something a little arbitrary or random about the (English-language) article called "Fête." Are we sure the article should exist at all? [[User:Jcejhay|Jcejhay]] ([[User talk:Jcejhay|talk]]) [[User:Jcejhay|Jcejhay]] ([[User talk:Jcejhay|talk]]) 21:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I'm open to that argument, but if we were to remove this article, we would probably need to create [[Village fête]], which would be even narrower in scope and even more Britain-centric. The current title makes it easier to cover things that are ''related'' to the British tradition, but aren't specifically ''village'' fêtes.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 22:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I edited the lede to make the article's topic clearer. It was actively misleading as it was.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 22:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Excellent. That solves the problem, imo. [[User:Jcejhay|Jcejhay]] ([[User talk:Jcejhay|talk]]) [[User:Jcejhay|Jcejhay]] ([[User talk:Jcejhay|talk]]) 22:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2022|2022 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1124425177 -->

== Merry Christmas! ==

Hi Srleffler. I just wanted to say thanks for all you do around here, and for all the help you gave me over the years. I you're doing good on this frigid winter's day. I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 19:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

== Removal of a cite in the article [[Incandescent light bulb]] ==

[[User:Srleffler]] hello:
I removed the cite near the lumen efficacy of LED lamps, because it looked to me as unrelated to the topic.
Thanks. [[User:זור987|זור987]] ([[User talk:זור987|talk]]) 07:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for April 10==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited [[Civil time]], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page [[Blue Monday]]<!-- ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Civil_time check to confirm]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Civil_time?client=notify fix with Dab solver])-->. Such links are [[WP:INTDABLINK|usually incorrect]], since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the [[User:DPL bot/Dablink notification FAQ|FAQ]]{{*}} Join us at the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links|DPL WikiProject]].)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 06:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

==Electric light==
A few articles says Joseph Swan's home was the first to use electric light, but no specific date or year, and most importantly; I have not been able to find any information about what he used as a power source. He did use batteries during his experiments, and if he made use of light bulbs in his house, they must have gotten their energy from batteries if there were no generators fueled by coal or used hydroelectric power. Maybe there was, but as mentioned, I have not been able to find any information about it.

What I have found is that Cragside house, which belonged to William Armstrong, was the first who used electric light back in 1878. As a power source he had his own hydroelectric power station. At first it was the arc lamp, and in 1880 the arc lamp was replaced by Swan's light bulbs.J.P. Morgan was the first outside UK it seems, and used a coal fueled steam engine to produce electricity for his light bulbs. https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/18/geeks_guide_to_britain_cragside/ and https://co-curate.ncl.ac.uk/electricity-pioneers/history/ [[User:Rhynchosaur|Rhynchosaur]] ([[User talk:Rhynchosaur|talk]]) 03:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

== Reversion ==

Hello. Please refresh your memory about [[Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary|when to revert]]. Apart from disagreeing with your assessment of my reordering the arts section, you have actually reverted a lot of necessary copyediting on [[:Divergence (disambiguation)]], including the intro, non-alpha order which separated, for instance, [[:Divergence (eye)]] and [[:Divergence (optics)]], and the differences between "divergent", "divergence", "diverge", and "diverged". I put quite a bit of work into sorting that all out, and do not want to do it all again. If you really want to keep the arts as one section, which in my opinion looked muddled, then at least alphabetise the order of the words. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 05:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

:Alphabetization of dab pages is generally a bad idea. You're sorting by the names of the ambiguous articles, which is precisely the thing that the reader does not know. If they knew that, they would not be on the dab page. Dab pages should be ordered by how likely each link is to be the one the user wants. More common topics should be listed ahead of more obscure ones. I reverted you largely to undo the alphabetization.
:I did consider keeping the '"divergent", "divergence", "diverge", and "diverged"' at the top but felt that it was more distracting than helpful. A reader looking for diverge won't be perturbed to find themselves on the divergence page. We don't start every article by listing every conjugation of its title. I'm open to putting that back if you feel it's important though. [[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 12:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
:Divergence (eye) and Divergence (optics) have nothing to do with one another, by the way. [[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 12:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
::I've always been guided by [[WP:DABORDER]], which I believed I was following with my changes.
::Yes, I know that those two have nothing to do with each other, but as the terminology used for the article names is on the face of it similar, IMO it is useful to list one following the other (and it happens to follow alphabetical order that way too). [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 13:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
:::I'm good with [[WP:DABORDER]], although I put more emphasis on "Within each section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article" than on some of its other guidance. When there isn't any other ordering that makes sense, sorting by similarity to the title and alphabetizing make sense. A major novel series that spun off multiple feature films should appear above several other novels by the same name, though. Films based on a novel should be listed with the novel. To do otherwise would be confusing. A reader is much more likely to be looking for the 2011 novel or its film adaptation than the 2007 novel by the same name. Listing the former and its sequels and spinoffs together makes it jump out at a glance as the better known novel of the two. In a similar vein, I always list songs after albums, and albums after bands. Individual TV episodes rank lower than films. In each case, my goal is to present more likely choices first, to best assist the reader in finding what they want.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 07:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

== Photometer, a bit more explanation ==

I noticed that you said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Photometer&diff=next&oldid=1166264182 in your edit summary here] that you didn't understand why I had reverted that edit, so I will give some more explanation. The user I reverted {{noping|Ettrig}} had been going around for several months adding AI-generated text to lead sections without any regard for the issues that such content may have. Most of the text they added had issues, not all of which were immediately obvious (such as subtle factual errors introduced by [[ChatGPT]]). Other issues included lack of wikilinks and unusual wording which could obscure the intended meaning of content. Of course, as I said in the summary, if you have thoroughly checked that content and are willing to take it on as your own responsibility, I don't object to you reinstating it. Cheerio and happy editing! 🙂 [[User:Mako001|Mako001]][[Special:Contributions/Mako001|&nbsp;(C)&nbsp;]][[User talk:Mako001|&nbsp;(T)&nbsp;]]&nbsp;🇺🇦 05:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
:Thanks for replying. I did find the administrator's noticeboard discussion after I reverted you. It would have been helpful if you had linked to that in your edit summary. Saying "Large language model" or "AI-generated" rather than "LLM" would also have helped.
:Yes, I reviewed the AI-generated material and I think it is OK.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 05:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

== Ball lens ==

Hi Srleffler! I just now noticed that you created this article just a few days ago. What a coincidence. Just a few days ago I took a photo for the purpose of adding it to the fluorescence article. That caused me to stumble across the ball lens article, and, finding no room to add my photo, I decided to make some room. Hope you don't mind me expanding it a little. Thanks, and have a great day. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 22:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
:Nicely done. You added some good content.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 20:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks. I liked your changes as well. You added some good points that never occurred to me. I think it could probably use a quick mention of GRIN balls, although I think they're still just theoretical. (I came up with a way to make balls with a negative gradient but so far I've never found a way to make a positive one. Still working on it.) I'll leave that for another day. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 20:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
:::GRIN ball lenses exist. See [[Luneburg lens]].--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 18:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

== Laser use in Delineation ==
I understand your edits and thank you for them. I was adding a new use of lasers as reported in the many citations I found on the subject. I thought we as Wikipedia contributors should give as much pertinent and relative information as possible on any given subject that would be of interest to that page as possible. [[User:Enoska13|Enoska13]] ([[User talk:Enoska13|talk]]) 01:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
:Context is important. Lasers are a very broad topic. The laser article covers a lot of ground. Applications are only a small part of it, and many applications that are ''much'' more important than delineation get only a few words. You could add something about delineation at [[List of laser applications]], though. --[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 05:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
::Understood. Good advice. Thank you. [[User:Enoska13|Enoska13]] ([[User talk:Enoska13|talk]]) 10:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

== Stubs ==

It seems that you have a better understanding if what a stub article is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MHV_connector&diff=1166689450&oldid=1166063360 compared to some other editors]. I think you should work on [[:Category:Electronics stubs]]. I tried cleaning it out on another IP address but other editors seem to think that anon editor knows nothing. As a logged in editor I racked up over 100,000 so I reckon I know how WP works. I get really pissed off with how WP, an important and influential website, is being mismanaged. Cheers. [[Special:Contributions/121.98.204.148|121.98.204.148]] ([[User talk:121.98.204.148|talk]]) 01:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

:I'll take a look if I have the time.
:It's important to understand that collaboration is a social exercise not just a technical one. How you present yourself and how you work with other people matters. You can be right on an issue but if you don't communicate what you are doing well you will struggle. A tiny effort to communicate can save so much effort getting what you want to do done. -- [[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 01:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


== On Google books URLs ==
== Entrance pupil dependency on the object plane location ==


Hi Srleffler.
Hello Srleffler, I hope all is well.


I'm about to engage in a new round of [[laser]]-related edits, and, since I'll be citing sources, I'd like to know whether I am to include URLs to Google books or not — a matter previously discussed [[User_talk:L'OrfeoGreco#Direct_links_to_Google_books?|here]], albeit without a conclusion having been reached.


Think about it and let me know.
I noticed that you have reverted my update (made on 2023-10-05) on the Wikipedia page [[Entrance pupil]]. The update had information that the Entrance pupil depends on the object plane location. You wrote a reason of your undoing the update as that the pupil depends only on the location of the aperture (I think it means the aperture stop) and the arrangement of optics in front of it, not the object plane location.
Thank you. [[User:L'OrfeoGreco|'''L'Orfeo''']]<sup>[[User talk:L'OrfeoGreco|<span style="color:green">''Son io''</span>]]</sup> 12:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


:It's probably better to include it, especially if you can link to the actual page where the information is. [[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 15:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
However, as the reference "Hecht, Eugene (2017). "5.3.2 Entrance and Exit Pupils". P. 184. ''Optics'' (5th ed.). Pearson. [[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/978-1-292-09693-3|<bdi>978-1-292-09693-3</bdi>]]." said, <u>the aperture stop (so the entrance pupil) depends on the object plane location.</u> If the object plane moves, then a different optical component plays the primary limiter for the cone of rays (emitted from the axial object point), i.e., that optics becomes the aperture stop. I think that a [https://wp.optics.arizona.edu/jgreivenkamp/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/12/201-202-10-Stops-and-Pupils.pdf lecture note] "Lecture, Section 11 Stops and Pupils, Geometrical and Instrumental Optics, OPTI-201_202, John E. Greivenkamp, Arizona University, 2018-12" also mentioned the dependency of the Entrance pupil to the object plane.
::Excellent! Thank you for your feedback! [[User:L'OrfeoGreco|'''L'Orfeo''']]<sup>[[User talk:L'OrfeoGreco|<span style="color:green">''Son io''</span>]]</sup> 23:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C ==
Thus, could you confirm if the aperture stop as well as the entrance pupil are really not depending on the object plane? If you think that I'm right, then my update needs to be revived. [[User:Goodphy|Goodphy]] ([[User talk:Goodphy|talk]]) 10:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
:Yes, you are right. The entrance pupil does not in general change when the object plane changes, but a change in object plane can cause a different optical element to become the aperture stop. If the aperture stop changes, the entrance pupil changes. This is not a particularly common thing. Most optical systems have an element that is designed to be the aperture stop of the system (eg the iris in a camera) and are not likely to be used with an object distance that causes some other element to become the stop.
:This fact should be in the article somewhere, but maybe not in that paragraph. I'll take a look and see where it best fits.


<section begin="announcement-content" />
:By the way, I have noticed that you very often use parentheses to insert technical details into sentences. This makes for sentences that are very hard to read and understand, especially for a reader who is new to the material. In general, if you're inclined to use parentheses you should instead consider rewriting the sentence or breaking it into two sentences to express the concepts more clearly.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 22:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
:''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder|You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.]] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-{{urlencode:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder}}&language=&action=page&filter= {{int:please-translate}}]''
::I have seen your effort to harmonize your writing style and my request to add the Aperture Stop / Entrance Pupil dependency on the object plane location as well as lateral object point location at the given object plane. I have added a citation for the lateral object position dependency.
::For challenging my writing style, I will consider your point although I do not fully understand why Wikipedia pages should not be so technical. I have seen pages that have detailed technical point of views and in my point of view, it is good for students and researchers. [[User:Goodphy|Goodphy]] ([[User talk:Goodphy|talk]]) 23:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
:::The level of technical detail varies with the topic, and varies ''within each article''. A topic that is unlikely to be of interest to a broad audience can be more technical. A topic that may attract a wide audience should be less technical. A good rule of thumb is that an article on a technical subject of broad interest should be written so as to be comprehensible by a bright high school student. Even very technical articles should start with an introduction written for a general audience if possible, and explain the topic in simpler terms first, before diving into more technical content.
:::In the case of [[Entrance pupil]], besides students of optics this topic is of interest to photographers, who may have little or no optics education. It's important that the article remain approachable to a broad audience. We can cover technical details, but we need to make sure that we explain the basics first, in a form that is digestible by someone with no training in optics. --[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 00:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


Dear Wikimedian,
== Mission "Laser" ==


You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
Hello Srleffler.


This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|voting page on Meta-wiki]] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
I recently noticed that you have made some edits at a level 3 vital article I am particularly interested in, [[Laser]].<br>
Lately, I have been thinking of mobilising a team of physics-specialised editors to bring the goal of a GA-status Laser article to fruition
and couldn't think of many an editor more suitable for this mission than yourself.


The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter|review the U4C Charter]].
If you have the will and time, please do inform me, so that we can start moving the vital article towards [[Wikipedia:Good articles|GA]] status.<br>


Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
By the way, thank you for your general contribution on Physics-related wiki-topics, [[User:L'OrfeoGreco|'''L'Orfeo''']]<sup>[[User talk:L'OrfeoGreco|<span style="color:green">''Son io''</span>]]</sup> 22:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
:I don't have much time, but will probably jump in once editing starts.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 23:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
::Your contribution alone is enough to motivate me! I'll wait a tad bit for the rest invitees to answer and then I'll begin! Thank you! [[User:L'OrfeoGreco|'''L'Orfeo''']]<sup>[[User talk:L'OrfeoGreco|<span style="color:green">''Son io''</span>]]</sup> 11:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />
==Quote==
Hello. Just read some of your user page and am impressed by your quote "I think Wikipedia is quite possibly the best invention since the library." Worded well. Can I use it on my talk page intro, quoting you? Is it quoted somewhere else on the site - there should be a page of user quotes like that, I'm not familiar with it if it exists. Yours seems a good descriptor of the importance, scope, and concept of Wikipedia, and a good conversation topic. Thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:Thanks. Feel free to quote me.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 03:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you. Will use it in small print in the "[[User talk:Randy Kryn#Always interesting|Always interesting]]" section along with the should-be-famous quote by Kizor in the ''New York Times'': "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 04:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
== Your recent removal on my edits ==
<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_2&oldid=26721207 -->


== Nodal points and EFL ==
Hi.


Thanks for your edits in the nodal point section, and about efl. This is fundamental to optics, but it was never really clearly rationalized. The response of Zemax seems to have been to remove any definition for EFL, rather than to clearly state what it is. In the 60s or so, Kingslake said just use "focal length" (but only considered lenses in air), but Warren Smith started using efl, and it seems like Welford had dealt with lenses for bubble chambers, which may be why his equations were particularly clear. And there have been terms like "reduced power". And Arizona had a different definition, which might be the biggest issue. The thing about the n=1 comment is that if the object and image media are different, something else happens (and a paper editor spelled it out with a worked example, but it is not published anywhere yet). Anything that makes this crystal clear will help. Regards. Mike Simpson [[User:YesYes42|YesYes42]] ([[User talk:YesYes42|talk]]) 15:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I have an impression that you have traced my edits and remove my major updates. I really don't like your behaviors because you simply removed my works that were made by spending ~ 1 hours or more. If you do the same removal next time without noticing me, then I will simply undo your work applied on my edit. [[User:Goodphy|Goodphy]] ([[User talk:Goodphy|talk]]) 01:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:I think the trouble is the concept of focal length itself. Everyone gets attached to it because it's the first thing you learn about lenses, and for an ideal thin lens in air it has a simple, intuitive physical meaning. The problem is that once you move beyond that the concept of "focal length" becomes less physical. For the general case of a thick lens or a multi-element optical system with differing media on each side the EFL is the only thing you could call "the focal length" of the system. It isn't a distance from anything to the focal points, but it is the inverse of the optical power of the system so it does have a clear physical meaning.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 04:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
:Hi Goodphy. No, I have not been following you, but I do have many optics articles on my watchlist, so there is naturally a lot of overlap between your editing and articles I am watching.
:Most of what I have been doing is copyediting—trying to improve the quality of the writing. I typically don't blanket revert but rather carefully review and edit each change. If I remove something completely, it's because I don't think it belongs, or at least not at that point in the article. You may spend an hour or more on your edit, but I also spend an hour or more trying to improve it. The situation is just as frustrating for me as it is for you. It's not fun having to repeatedly spend an hour or more fixing edits that made the wording and sentence structure of the article ''slightly'' worse in a dozen places without really adding much useful content. Ultimately, though, that is how Wikipedia works. Back and forth editing gradually improves the articles. Most of your ideas do remain, but not always with the same wording.
:Note that edit warring is not permitted. Having written something doesn't give you ownership of it. Nobody has the right to blanket revert other users blindly as you have suggested doing. You can't enforce your changes by "simply undoing" anything anyone else does. If you disagree with any of my changes, start a conversation about it on the article's talk page and we can discuss it and hopefully come to some consensus. You may find this essay helpful: [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]]. --[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler#top|talk]]) 12:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:57, 5 May 2024

Archive
Archives

Hi, feel free to leave me a message. Kindly leave messages on new topics at the bottom of this page. Srleffler

You are correct

[edit]

I really should have linked the discussion I was referring to avoid confusion. I’ll have to remember this for the future when talking about behavior; I should also try to write things a little more earlier than midnight ;) (When I woke up after that night I had to edit a lot if clumsy grammar mistakes I made). Wolfquack (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. My post was more directed towards the editors who participated in that “consensus”, which is why I didn’t think I needed to add the link. Definitely a mega oof. Wolfquack (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]

Hi Srleffler! I've seen so many people come and go over the years. I'm glad to see you're still around. Your help on optics and laser articles is always appreciated. I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas! I hope the coming New Year brings you happiness and joy! Zaereth (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to you too, Zaereth!--Srleffler (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Google books URLs

[edit]

Hello Srleffler, I hope all is well.

I'm about to engage in a new round of laser-related edits, and, since I'll be citing sources, I'd like to know whether I am to include URLs to Google books or not — a matter previously discussed here, albeit without a conclusion having been reached.

Think about it and let me know. Thank you. L'OrfeoSon io 12:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better to include it, especially if you can link to the actual page where the information is. Srleffler (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thank you for your feedback! L'OrfeoSon io 23:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

[edit]
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nodal points and EFL

[edit]

Thanks for your edits in the nodal point section, and about efl. This is fundamental to optics, but it was never really clearly rationalized. The response of Zemax seems to have been to remove any definition for EFL, rather than to clearly state what it is. In the 60s or so, Kingslake said just use "focal length" (but only considered lenses in air), but Warren Smith started using efl, and it seems like Welford had dealt with lenses for bubble chambers, which may be why his equations were particularly clear. And there have been terms like "reduced power". And Arizona had a different definition, which might be the biggest issue. The thing about the n=1 comment is that if the object and image media are different, something else happens (and a paper editor spelled it out with a worked example, but it is not published anywhere yet). Anything that makes this crystal clear will help. Regards. Mike Simpson YesYes42 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the trouble is the concept of focal length itself. Everyone gets attached to it because it's the first thing you learn about lenses, and for an ideal thin lens in air it has a simple, intuitive physical meaning. The problem is that once you move beyond that the concept of "focal length" becomes less physical. For the general case of a thick lens or a multi-element optical system with differing media on each side the EFL is the only thing you could call "the focal length" of the system. It isn't a distance from anything to the focal points, but it is the inverse of the optical power of the system so it does have a clear physical meaning.--Srleffler (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srleffler&oldid=1222298353"